Deeplinkshttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/rss/updates.xml/internet-governance-forum
EFF's Deeplinks Blog: Noteworthy news from around the internetpt-brTowards an Internet Nation?https://www.eff.org/pt-br/node/82111
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><blockquote><p>Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.</p></blockquote><p>These are the opening words of the <a href="https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html">Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace</a>, written by EFF co-founder and board member, John Perry Barlow almost two decades ago. The document is more of a visionary dream than a political program, and doesn't shape EFF's policy on a day to day level (indeed, <a href="http://archive.today/ut0al">Barlow himself has said</a> that he would write it differently today). Yet it continues to resonate strongly for many.</p><p>The Declaration featured in a <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/09/05/internet-nation/">closing address</a> by Professor Milton Mueller of Syracuse University delivered at this year's <a href="https://eff.org/issues/igf">Internet Governance Forum</a> (IGF), which wound up last week in Istanbul, Turkey. "Clearly," Mueller asserted, "the Internet provides the basis for a community with its own interests, an incipient identity, its own norms and modes of living together. And it is only a small step from community to nation." Addressing an assemblage of government ministers, industry heads and users from around the world, Mueller suggested, "maybe John Perry Barlow's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace is worth a second look."</p><p>Across the world, others are also thoroughly dissatisfied with the current state of <a href="/deeplinks/2014/08/internet-governance-and-netmundial-initiative-flawed-attempt-turning-words-action"> Internet governance</a>—yes, even with the IGF itself. Although often praised by insiders as being a useful discussion forum where public and private stakeholders can broaden their knowledge of Internet policy issues and their appreciation of other points of view, the tangible results of this knowledge exchange have been thin on the ground.</p><p>The result has been a recent flourishing of independent Internet governance initiatives, all presented with the earnest disclaimer that they do not intend to duplicate the IGF—but which nevertheless address areas well within the scope of the IGF's original mandate. These include an independent global meeting called <a href="/deeplinks/2014/04/netmundial">NETmundial</a> this April, not <a href="https://www.ourinternet.org/">one</a> but <a href="http://internetgovernancepanel.org/">two</a> global expert panels, an initiative of the <a href="/deeplinks/2014/08/internet-governance-and-netmundial-initiative-flawed-attempt-turning-words-action"> World Economic Forum</a>, and alongside the IGF meeting in Istanbul the <a href="http://iuf.alternatifbilisim.org/"> Internet Ungovernance Forum</a> (IUF), which EFF supported.</p><p>One of the motivations behind the organization of this inaugural IUF is that the policy of the United Nations—with which the IGF remains linked—has been interpreted as preventing Forum participants from "naming and shaming" particular countries over human rights abuses, and proposals for workshops at this year's IGF that would focus on the host country, Turkey, were refused by organizers on this basis. With no other space to voice their concerns about pervasive censorship and curtailment of freedom of expression in Turkey, participants were essentially forced into holding an independent event.</p><p>Speaking at the IUF, Web activist Harry Halpin explained the need for an alternative event with the claim that "discussions at the IGF are exclusionary". None other than Julian Assange, appearing by video link at the event, went still further, claiming that the IGF, in its support of the powerful, was really functioning as an "Internet Censorship Forum". Whilst this might sound like hyperbole, the IGF's structure has shown a low tolerance for dissent, with a record of<a href="https://opennet.net/faq-what-happened-internet-governance-forum"> removing posters on Chinese censorship</a> at the 2009 meeting in Egypt and <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/azerbaijan-after-2012-igf-freedom-expression-more"> excluding host country activists</a> as at the 2012 meeting in Azerbaijan.</p><p>Others find the IGF's most serious deficits not in the discussions that it excludes, but in the fact that the discussions it does facilitate do not go anywhere. The IGF has yet to develop the capacity to issue any non-binding principles or recommendations that could guide other actors and institutions, in the same way that governmental bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council do.</p><p>Mueller's thesis —not so far from Barlow's—is that we ought not to have to rely on such government-led bodies to lay down principles for the global Internet, but that the future lies in the Internet developing its own capacity for self-governance, through a loose network of bodies in which all stakeholders, whether public and private, participate on an equal footing. For some, the appeal of the IGF lies in its potential, currently unrealized, to act as a hub of such a network.</p><p>These are subversive ideas, to be sure—and we need to think about them carefully, whilst also thinking through the implications of their alternatives. EFF generally focus less of our time and attention on the evolution of institutional Internet governance, and more on fighting for substantive rights and freedoms through the structures that we already have. But this is not the same as to accept that existing governance structures are perfect, or that rights and freedoms on the global Internet might yet be best safeguarded by new models which did not directly proceed from the affairs and interests of nation states. As John Perry Barlow presciently wrote:</p><blockquote><p>We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.</p></blockquote>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international">International</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/igf">Internet Governance Forum</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Towards+an+Internet+Nation%3F+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fnode%2F82111" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fnode%2F82111&t=Towards+an+Internet+Nation%3F" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fnode%2F82111" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Towards an Internet Nation%3F&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fnode%2F82111" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:09:44 +0000Jeremy Malcolm82111 at https://www.eff.orgHuman Rights Are Not Negotiable: Looking Back at Brazil's NETMundialhttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/deeplinks/2014/04/netmundial
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>At the start of her opening address to the <a target="_self" href="http://netmundial.br/">NETmundial</a> conference in Sao Paolo this Tuesday, Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff ceremonially <a href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/04/23/brazil-marcocivil-netmundial2014-senate-approves-bill/">signed the Marco Civil</a>, Brazil's long fought-for Internet Bill of Rights, into law. Even as she did so, activists from the floor below waved Ed Snowden masks and banners protesting the bill's inclusion of a data retention mandate.</p>
<p>It was a prefiguration of the battle between high hopes, user rights, anti-surveillance activism, and the forces of compromise that would take place in this forum over the next two days.</p>
<p>Over a thousand delegates—from advocacy groups like EFF, companies like Microsoft, the governments of states from the U.S. to Russia, to technical Internet groups like ICANN and the IETF, as well as videoconferencing citizens patched in from India to Argentina—took turns to make statements on the convention's main product, an "<a href="http://document.netmundial.br/">outcome document</a>" that would describe the values and direction of Internet governance. After a day of the statements, the drafting committees of the document retired to a smaller room, equipped with snacks, alcohol and video projectors, where they began openly and publicly haggling over the details of the document, surrounded by crowds of eavesdropping delegates.</p>
<p>The intense monitoring of the drafters curiously mirrored the reason why such a strange mix of society had been brought here: the unchecked surveillance by the intelligence agencies of the United States and other governments, and the resulting challenge that spying has placed on the legitimacy of Internet governance venues like the United Nation's <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/">Internet Governance Forum</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/">President Rousseff's </a><a href="http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/BR_en.pdf">rousing attack</a> on NSA spying last year at the United Nations's declared that it "affect[ed] the international community itself and demands a response from it." She called for the establishment of a "civilian multilateral framework for the governance and use of the Internet." Rousseff's plan was reinforced by a later meeting with ICANN's President Fadi Chehadé, the representative of the signatories of the Montevideo Statement, a collection of key technical groups associated with Internet governance, who had also expressed their concern that pervasive monitoring and surveillance undermined "the trust and confidence of Internet users globally."</p>
<p>The result was NETmundial, a Internet-mediated event with invited attendees from numerous camps, including business, civil society, governments and the Internet's technical community.</p>
<p>The inspiration for NETmundial's process was that of Brazil's Marco Civil itself, <a href="http://giplatform.org/resources/text-brazils-new-marco-civil">whose text</a> includes important new guarantees of freedom of expression, protection of privacy and personal data, network neutrality and openness. The law was initially drafted in a decentralized, collaborative process that used some of the Net's own organizational innovations. Its passage through parliament involved the same political wrangling as any law does, however, with the result that some unfortunate compromises were made—including the bill's Article 15, which now compels Brazilian ISPs and other Internet companies to retain their customers' communications data for a fixed period.</p>
<p>The result was a document that emphasized and reinforced human rights at its core, yet mandated a level of compulsory private data collection upon Brazilian citizen, even as Europe's highest court was rejecting similar EU legislation as being an explicit violation of human rights. Clearly the process of compromise works against the defense of human rights as well as protect them.</p>
<p>Unlike the Brazilian law, the text developed at NETmundial was not meant to be a law, but a set of non-binding international principles along with a roadmap for future developments of the Internet governance ecosystem. The original text was ambitious in its scope, including sections on the application of human rights online, support for the open and distributed architecture of the Internet including open standards, and aspirations for how governance of the Internet should be made more democratic and inclusive.</p>
<p>But as with the Marco Civil, compromises quickly pockmarked the NETmundial outcome document.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most troubled areas were those on intellectual property, which prompted as ever a flood of comments on behalf of rights holders to the NETmundial online comment platform in the days leading up to the meeting, and intense lobbying by rights holders like MPAA, generally supported by Western governments, at the event. The fruits can be seen in the final text, where strong statements of unqualified human rights and shared values have been fenced in by rights holder terminology.</p>
<ul><li>Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law.</li>
<li>Protection of intermediaries: Intermediary liability limitations should be implemented in a way that respects and promotes economic growth, innovation, creativity and free flow of information. In this regard, cooperation among all stakeholders should be encouraged to address and deter illegal activity, consistent with fair process.</li>
</ul><p>The NETmundial document may not be binding, but the ability of right holder lobbyists in inserting language that has been previously been used to terminate users' Internet connections, commandeer ISPs to be the copyright police of their own customers, and censor and filter the Internet demonstrates just how swiftly even novel and apparently open deliberation of online rights can be steered into dangerous territory. While NETmundial was far more open than other lobbying venues, such as the ultra-secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership, the resources of big business to wordsmith away and influence drafters, compared to the relatively small ability for advocacy groups and individual net users to influence the process, still shows in the final text.</p>
<p>NETmundial's most re-iterated point, and ultimately its entire reason for existing—to make a strong statement against mass surveillance—was also diminished by the process. For all its commitment to transparency and openness, governments, including the United States government, had the last say in a closed meeting at the very end of NETmundial. Even before then, the targets of Rousseff's and the Internet technical community's ire set about weakening an initial strong draft document, as obtained by WikiLeaks before the public consultation.</p>
<p>The result is that while NETmundial's outcomes document softly condemns the practice of mass and arbitrary surveillance, it fails to point out to strong legal safeguards against unchecked surveillance practices, for example by reference to the Necessary and Proportionate principles, which were cited in the original version, and rather than calling for strong and immediate action, the text merely calls for a "review" of procedures and recommends that "more dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level."</p>
<p>For those hoping that NETmundial would provide a renewed validation of the multi-stakeholder process and show how it might combat concerted attempts to weaken the Internet's security and the rights of users, the result was disappointing. But Internet governance forums are not the only place where the surveillance state can be challenged. So many stakeholders, across all of NETmundial's interest groups, expressed their concern at mass surveillance, but what is important is what they do next. What practical steps will politicians take now to rein in their own out-of-control intelligence agencies, and put pressure on other countries? How determined are the Internet's technical communities to re-build the kind of decentralized, encrypted, end-to-end infrastructure that offers the Internet resilience to surveillance and censorship? Can private businesses change their behavior and relationship with government as their own data collection practices are used to violate the privacy of their own customers? Non-binding texts may be negotiable, but when it comes to fundamental human rights and the battle for a trustworthy, open, and secure Internet, there can be no compromise.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/free-speech">Free Speech</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international">International</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/surveillance-human-rights">Vigilância Estatal &amp; Direitos Humanos</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/igf">Internet Governance Forum</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Human+Rights+Are+Not+Negotiable%3A+Looking+Back+at+Brazil%27s+NETMundial+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2014%2F04%2Fnetmundial" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2014%2F04%2Fnetmundial&t=Human+Rights+Are+Not+Negotiable%3A+Looking+Back+at+Brazil%27s+NETMundial" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2014%2F04%2Fnetmundial" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Human Rights Are Not Negotiable%3A Looking Back at Brazil%27s NETMundial&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2014%2F04%2Fnetmundial" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:07:29 +0000Danny O&#039;Brien and Jeremy Malcolm80046 at https://www.eff.orgUN Human Rights Council Resolution on Internet and Human Rights a Step in the Right Directionhttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/deeplinks/2012/07/un-human-rights-council-resolution-internet-and-human-rights-step-right-direction
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Earlier this month, the 47 member states of the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a <a href="//www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/19/64/51/6999c512.pdf”">landmark Resolution</a> (A/HRC/20/L.13) to include the “promotion, protection, and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet.” The Resolution, which was presented by Sweden, was backed by more than 70 countries in all, both members and non-members of the HRC.</p>
<p>In the <em>New York Times</em>, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt called the Resolution a <a href="//www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/opinion/carl-bildt-a-victory-for-the-internet.html?_r=2”">“victory for the Internet”</a>, while US Secretary of State Clinton praised it as a “ welcome addition in the fight for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms online, in particular the freedom of expression.”</p>
<p>The Resolution builds on the work of UN Special Rapporteur Frank LaRue who, after a year of consultations with civil society groups, released a <a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf">report</a> on the promotion and protection of freedom of expression on the Internet. In his report, LaRue touched upon a variety of threats to free expression online, including the enforcement of "real name" systems; the use of national security or counterterrorism measures to restrict free speech; the overbroad use of defamation laws; and the widespread use of technological surveillance. LaRue concluded by calling upon states to take measures to ensure "as little restriction as possible to the flow of information via the Internet, except in few, exceptional, and limited circumstances prescribed by international human rights law."</p>
<p>At the time, EFF <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/u-n-special-rapporteur-calls-upon-states-protect">praised</a> the Special Rapporteur's report, and continues to be pleased with the work he is doing. We therefore see this Resolution—which affirms that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online”—as a step in the right direction. Despite that, states are increasingly failing to comply fully with their international human rights obligations, including the adoption of necessary measures to make human rights effective.</p>
<p>As Dr. Matthias Kettermann points out in the <em>European Journal of International Law</em>, however, the Resolution does not rule out the possibility of countries abusing human rights online. Specifically, the Resolution references Article 19 of the <a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art19">International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</a> (ICCPR), which—as Kettermann explains—“allows for certain restrictions of the right [to free expression]” when provided by law, for “(a) respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.”</p>
<p>Referring to Article 19 of the ICCPR, <a href="http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28Symbol%29/2bb2f14bf558182ac12563ed0048df17?Opendocument">CCPR General Comment No. 10</a> notes that, "[W]hen a State party imposes certain restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, these may not put in jeopardy the right itself." Such restrictions may only be imposed by law and must be justified as being "necessary" for one of the purposes stated in Paragraph 3, subparagraph (b).</p>
<p>Despite such protections, however, a number of the 47 member states of the HRC censor the Internet and citizens’ right to free expression under such pretexts. For example, <a href="//opennet.net/research/profiles/qatar”">Qatar</a> censors a variety of websites, including those critical of the royal family. The senior manager of the country’s largest ISP, Qtel, once explained this as a “desire to maintain ethical standards and protect the culture of the society.” India <a href="//www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/india%E2%80%99s-downward-spiral”">made headlines</a> earlier this year for its designs to increase censorship on social networks. Turkey censors—both online and off—criticism of the country's founder, Kamal Atatürk, as well as insults to "Turkishness." And member states China, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan, Saudi Arabia and Thailand—among others—have all come under fire for heavy-handed censorship of websites. </p>
<p>Furthermore, a number of member states have used intellectual property as a justification for the installation of technical censorship mechanisms. In several countries, <a href="https://globalchokepoints.org/">regulation that would cut an individual off from the Internet indefinitely</a>—generally known as "three strikes laws"—has been proposed or enacted. Laws that prevent an individual from using the Internet entirely are surely a violation of human rights, and the Special Rapporteur agrees; in his report, he urged states to repeal or amend existing intellectual property laws that would permit disconnection of a user from the Internet, and to refrain from adopting such laws.</p>
<p>Lastly, the Resolution makes no mention of the ubiquity of <a href="eff.org/issues/mass-surveillance">online surveillance technologies</a>, which are increasingly being used by governments to track down dissidents and stifle dissent, threatening to make meaningless the legal guarantees of privacy and free expression. From its widespread use in pre-revolutionary <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/tunisian-news-round">Tunisia</a> and <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/eu-parliament-takes-first-step-bans-sales">Egypt</a> (both non-member signatory states) to its <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying">illegal use</a> in the United States, online surveillance poses a huge threat to freedom of expression and must be considered as such.</p>
<p>All in all, however, UNHRC’s Resolution on Internet freedom is a positive step toward ensuring that human rights apply online, but it is only a first step, and it will not alone prevent countries determined to censor the Internet from doing so. The next step, of course, is putting action behind those words, and for that, the onus is on individual states.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/free-speech">Free Speech</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international">International</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/igf">Internet Governance Forum</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=UN+Human+Rights+Council+Resolution+on+Internet+and+Human+Rights+a+Step+in+the+Right+Direction+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F07%2Fun-human-rights-council-resolution-internet-and-human-rights-step-right-direction" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F07%2Fun-human-rights-council-resolution-internet-and-human-rights-step-right-direction&t=UN+Human+Rights+Council+Resolution+on+Internet+and+Human+Rights+a+Step+in+the+Right+Direction" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F07%2Fun-human-rights-council-resolution-internet-and-human-rights-step-right-direction" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Internet and Human Rights a Step in the Right Direction&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F07%2Fun-human-rights-council-resolution-internet-and-human-rights-step-right-direction" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:05:04 +0000Jillian York71306 at https://www.eff.orgWidespread Participation Is Key in Internet Governance https://www.eff.org/pt-br/deeplinks/2012/06/widespread-participation-key-internet-governance
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Several governments are pushing for proposals that seek to draw borders around the global Internet. With big decisions at stake, it’s critical that Internet users understand the threats and have a meaningful say in the final outcome. At a panel held in Washington, D.C. June 26 to highlight global threats to Internet governance, much of the discussion revolved around multistakeholder processes, or the involvement of all stakeholders in Internet policy making discussions on equal footing.</p>
<p>Hosted by the National Endowment for Democracy and the Center for International Media Assistance, the <a href="http://cima.ned.org/events/upcoming-events/clear-and-present-danger-attempts-change-internet-governance-and-implications">forum</a> brought together Emma Llansó of the Center for Democracy and Technology; Rebecca MacKinnon of the New America Foundation; Emin Milli of the University of London; and EFF’s own <a href="https://www.eff.org/about/staff/katitza-rodriguez">Katitza Rodriguez</a>.</p>
<p>As several panelists pointed out, there’s still a long way to go before millions of Internet users can truly achieve representation in intergovernmental forums. It is at these largely inaccessible conventions that standards affecting the future of the Internet come into play and are ultimately determined. While some intergovernmental bodies, like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (<a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/oecd">OECD</a>), have officially embraced the concept of including a range of stakeholders in the decision-making process, other treaty-writing organizations fail to incorporate the views of anyone outside the exclusive circles of government officials or the powerful corporate players that hold influence at high levels.</p>
<p>One such meeting on the horizon has generated widespread concern among Internet freedom advocates. A United Nations agency known as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is now in the process of hosting regional meetings to prepare for a December forum, the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), where governments will revise the ITU’s underlying treaty establishing global telecommunication standards.</p>
<p>Civil society organizations are worried that at this event, representatives from world governments will endorse flawed proposals that, if approved, would grant the ITU a stronger role over the Internet. The final decisions will be made when the ITU’s 193 member states cast their votes. <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/hey-itu-member-states-no-more-secrecy-release-wcit-documents-0">EFF is concerned</a> that the definitions of the ITRs could be amended to include Internet services or cyber-security as part of international telecommunication. <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/eff-joins-coalition-denouncing-secretive-wcit-planning-process">EFF joined</a> civil society groups in taking the ITU to task last month for a <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/eff-joins-coalition-denouncing-secretive-wcit-planning-process">lack of transparency</a> surrounding its conference preparations.</p>
<p>“Internet governance is about who gets to participate in the decision-making about Internet policy and technology, and how that participation happens,” noted Llansó, of CDT, during the panel discussion. “It remains clear that the ITU and other intergovernmental efforts lack the transparency and inclusiveness that is characteristic of the multi-stakeholder model.” <strong></strong></p>
<p>EFF’s <a href="https://www.eff.org/about/staff/katitza-rodriguez">Katitza Rodriguez</a> pointed out that the current <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/congressional-witnesses-agree-multistakeholderism-right-way-regulate-internet">multistakeholder system</a> of Internet governance, even at its best, is not ideal. “Human rights must form the baseline for any multi-stakeholder Internet policy-making, current processes do not guarantee human rights will be respected and maximized,” Rodriguez said. Multi-stakeholder processes are still a “<a href="https://www.eff.org/IGF-EFF-Fights-Against-Dangers-Intermediaries-Internet-Police">work in progress</a>,” she noted. In a broader Internet governance context, “still a large part of the world’s population feels excluded from international Internet policy making venues.” The problem worsens when bad Internet policies are imposed upon the world by a handful of powerful governments.</p>
<p>MacKinnon echoed this idea, noting it’s important to be inclusive. “If the multistakeholder model will survive continued challenges, the people who dominate Internet governance processes need to do more work diversifying,” she said. “You have to bring the people who are the most vulnerable and the most affected.” </p>
<p>Just getting a broad group of stakeholders to the table is only half the battle – the greater challenge lies in ensuring that there are opportunities for meaningful contribution and that a variety of priorities are taken into account and integrated into the final framework.</p>
<p>Moderator Susan Morgan noted that the upcoming WCIT, the ITU’s treaty-writing event, surely isn’t the last international forum where civil society will have to react to attempts to manipulate global Internet governance. “In the broader context, we mustn’t forget that this is about individuals,” she noted, referring to the Internet users whose experience could be impacted if new international standards are approved. The real challenge from here on out, she added, lies in figuring out how to get more people engaged.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international">International</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/igf">Internet Governance Forum</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/oecd">OECD</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Widespread+Participation+Is+Key+in+Internet+Governance++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F06%2Fwidespread-participation-key-internet-governance" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F06%2Fwidespread-participation-key-internet-governance&t=Widespread+Participation+Is+Key+in+Internet+Governance+" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F06%2Fwidespread-participation-key-internet-governance" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Widespread Participation Is Key in Internet Governance &url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F06%2Fwidespread-participation-key-internet-governance" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:23:29 +0000Rebecca Bowe71102 at https://www.eff.orgCongressional Witnesses Agree: Multistakeholder Processes Are Right for Internet Regulationhttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/deeplinks/2012/05/congressional-witnesses-agree-multistakeholderism-right-way-regulate-internet
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Yesterday morning, the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a hearing on <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9543">"International Proposals to Regulate the Internet,"</a> focusing on the <a href="http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx">World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)</a><span>, an important treaty-writing event</span> set to take place in Dubai this December.<span></span> The WCIT is organized by an UN agency called the <a href="http://www.itu.int/en/Pages/default.aspx">International Telecommunication Union (ITU)</a>, <span>a </span><span>slow-moving and </span><span>bureaucratic regulatory organization</span> established in 1865 to oversee telegraph regulations. The ITU Member States adopted a legally binding set of telecommunication regulations in 1988<span></span>, and now some countries are seeking to expand those regulations to cover the Internet.</p>
<p><span>Online anonymity, privacy and free expression are likely to be under attack under an ITU model.</span> ITU officials <a href="http://www.zdnet.com.au/internet-wont-always-be-anonymous-itu-339331388.htm">have publically stated</a> that anonymity shouldn't exist in the future. Moreover, countries like <a href="http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15502838,00.html">Russia and China, in particular, have been prominent advocates</a> of codes of conduct that seek <span>to protect national governmental powers over the Internet, including provisions that seek <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/09/20/russia-china-propose-un-general-assembly-resolution-on-information-security/">to censor the net</a></span>.</p>
<p><span>It's worth noting though, that the threat posed by the ITU is not limited to an outright </span><span>"</span><span>takeover</span><span>"</span><span></span><span> by Russia or China. ITU's vision of Internet policy-making is more like "taking control" than the </span><span>transparent and bottom-up multi-stakeholder </span><span>process typically associated with Internet governance.</span> The current negotiations, for example, consist of <span>proposals being discussed under terms of secrecy,</span> circumventing any transparent discussion. And much like the parties behind the unpopular IP regulations in trade agreements like ACTA and TPP, the <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/hey-itu-member-states-no-more-secrecy-release-wcit-documents-0">ITU member states are also refusing to release documents that make up the amendments and preparatory materials</a> that they will propose. We have also seen censorships and surveillance measures in the name of copyright enforcement or by authoritarian regimes, and both are a real problem.<span></span><span></span></p>
<p>To their credit, the witnesses at yesterday's hearing — including former Ambassador David Gross, Senior Manager of Public Policy for the Internet Society Sally Shipman Wentworth, and "father of the Internet" Vint Cerf — were all clear that the stakes were high, and that any process that decides the direction of the Internet must be based on a foundation of multistakeholderism.</p>
<p>Cerf, for example, was unequivocal in <a href="http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Telecom/20120531/HHRG-112-IF16-WState-CerfV-20120531.pdf">his testimony</a> [pdf]:</p>
<blockquote><p>I believe that the multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance and technical management has been, and will continue to be, the best way to address the technical and policy issues facing the Internet globally.</p></blockquote>
<p>Shipman Wentworth expressed similar <a href="http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Telecom/20120531/HHRG-112-IF16-WState-WentworthS-20120531.pdf">doubts about the possibility that the treaty making process could produce a positive outcome</a> [pdf]:</p>
<blockquote><p>it is not clear to the Internet Society that the international treaty making process represents the most effective way to manage cross-border Internet communications, or that some of the proposals currently being floated are consistent – or even compatible – with the multistakeholder model of Internet governance that has emerged over the past 15 years.</p></blockquote>
<p><span></span>With so much on the line, in terms of the power for the open Internet to spur permissionless innovation and significant advances in international freedom of expression, there can be no question that handing the keys to an organization incapable of engaging in multistakeholder discussions is a profoundly bad idea. Multistakeholder processes are the way to ensure the users' input is included, and not left by the wayside. And multistakeholder processes cannot be multistakeholder in name only: we <a href="https://www.eff.org/IGF-EFF-Fights-Against-Dangers-Intermediaries-Internet-Police">remind all governments</a> that <span>a truly multistakeholder participation model requires equal footing for every relevant stakeholder including civil society, the private sector, the technical community, and participating governments. </span>Any process that claims to be multistakeholder must respect human rights as a baseline for any policy dialogue. The users must be represented in the development of Internet policy because the future of the Internet is too important to be left to companies and governments alone.</p>
<p>That's why EFF has joined European Digital Rights, CIPPIC and CDT and a coalition of civil society organizations from around the world in <a href="https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT">demanding that the organization behind WCIT release all of its preparatory materials and treaty proposals</a> for public review. We urge the ITU to ensure enough transparency that the outcomes of the WCIT and its preparatory process are in the interest of all stakeholders.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international">International</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international-privacy-standards">International Privacy Standards</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/igf">Internet Governance Forum</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Congressional+Witnesses+Agree%3A+Multistakeholder+Processes+Are+Right+for+Internet+Regulation+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F05%2Fcongressional-witnesses-agree-multistakeholderism-right-way-regulate-internet" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F05%2Fcongressional-witnesses-agree-multistakeholderism-right-way-regulate-internet&t=Congressional+Witnesses+Agree%3A+Multistakeholder+Processes+Are+Right+for+Internet+Regulation" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F05%2Fcongressional-witnesses-agree-multistakeholderism-right-way-regulate-internet" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Congressional Witnesses Agree%3A Multistakeholder Processes Are Right for Internet Regulation&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F05%2Fcongressional-witnesses-agree-multistakeholderism-right-way-regulate-internet" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:30:41 +0000Parker Higgins70910 at https://www.eff.orgHey ITU Member States: No More Secrecy, Release the Treaty Proposalshttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/deeplinks/2012/05/hey-itu-member-states-no-more-secrecy-release-wcit-documents-0
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><b><span></span></b><span>The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will hold the World Conference on International Telecommunications (</span><span><a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/wcit">WCIT-12</a></span><span>) in December in Dubai, an all-important treaty-writing event where ITU Member States will discuss the proposed revisions to the International Telecommunication Regulations (</span><span><a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/itr">ITR</a></span><span>). The </span><span><a href="http://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/default.aspx">ITU</a></span><span> is a United Nations agency responsible for international telecom regulation, a bureaucratic, slow-moving, closed regulatory organization that issues treaty-level provisions for international telecommunication networks and services. The ITR, a legally binding international treaty signed by 178 countries, </span><span><a href="http://groups.itu.int/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=c5zkrxxpiNw%3D&amp;tabid=1862">defines</a></span><span> the boundaries of ITU’s regulatory authority and </span><span><a href="http://groups.itu.int/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=c5zkrxxpiNw%3D&amp;tabid=1862">provides</a></span><span> "general principles" on international telecommunications.</span><span> However, </span><span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_1332768.html">media reports</a></span><span> indicate that some proposed amendments to the ITR—a negotiation that is already well underway—could potentially expand the ITU’s mandate to encompass the Internet. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In similar fashion to the secrecy surrounding </span><span><a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/acta">ACTA</a></span><span> and </span><span><a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp">TPP</a></span><span>, the ITR proposals are being negotiated in secret, with high barriers preventing access to any negotiating document. While aspiring to be a venue for Internet policy-making, the ITU Member States do not appear to be very open to the idea of allowing all stakeholders (including civil society) to participate. The framework under which the ITU operates does not allow for any form of open participation. Mere access to documents and decision-makers is sold by the ITU to corporate “associate” members at prohibitively high rates. Indeed, the ITU’s business model appears to depend on revenue generation from those seeking to ‘participate’ in its policy-making processes. This revenue-based principle of policy-making is deeply troubling in and of itself, as the objective of policy making should be to reach the best possible outcome. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Release the documents</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The ITU Member States should urgently lift restrictions on sharing the preparatory materials and ITR amendments, and release the documents. The current preparatory process lacks the transparency, openness of process, and inclusiveness of all relevant stakeholders that is the hallmark of Internet policy-making. A truly multi-stakeholder participation model requires equal footing for each relevant stakeholders including civil society, the private sector, the technical community, and participating governments. These principles are the minimum that one could expect following commitments made at the </span><span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html">World Summit on Information Society</a></span><span> (WSIS). The ITU Secretary-General Dr. Hamadoun I. Touré </span><span><a href="http://www.itu.int/en/osg/speeches/Pages/2011-09-27.aspx">reiterated</a></span><span> these commitments last year at the Internet Governance Forum in Kenya:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In its own words, the "ITU remains firmly committed to the WSIS process," and it considers itself to have "made considerable progress in many areas in advancing the implementation of the WSIS outcomes."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>And in practice? Not likely. This is why EFF, European Digital Rights, CIPPIC and CDT and a coalition of civil society organizations from around the world </span><span><a href="https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT">are demanding</a></span><span> that the ITU Secretary General, the WCIT-12 Council Working Group, and ITU Member States open up the WCIT-12 and the </span><span><a href="http://www.itu.int/council/groups/cwg-wcit12/index.html">Council working group negotiations</a></span><span>, by immediately releasing all the preparatory materials and Treaty proposals. If it affects the digital rights of citizens across the globe, the public needs to know what is going on and deserves to have a say. The Council Working Group is responsible for the preparatory work towards WCIT-12, setting the agenda for and consolidating input from participating governments and Sector Members.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>We demand full and meaningful participation for civil society in its own right, and without cost, at the Council Working Group meetings and the WCIT on equal footing with all other stakeholders, including participating governments. A transparent, open process that is inclusive of civil society at every stage is crucial to creating sound policy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Respect the multi-stakeholder process</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Civil society has good reason to be concerned regarding an expanded ITU policy-making role. To begin with, the institution does not appear to have high regard for the distributed multi-stakeholder decision making model that has been integral to the development of an innovative, successful and open Internet. In spite of commitments at WSIS to ensure Internet policy is based on input from all relevant stakeholders, the ITU has consistently put the interests of one stakeholder—<a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2010/04/06/itu-on-internet-governance-debates/">Governments—above all others</a>. This is discouraging, as some government interests are inconsistent with an open, innovative network. Indeed, the conditions which have made the Internet the powerful tool it is today emerged in an environment where the interests of <i>all</i> stakeholders are given equal footing, and existing Internet policy-making institutions at least aspire, with varying success, to emulate this equal footing. This formula is enshrined in the Tunis Agenda, which was committed to at WSIS in 2005:</span></p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span>83. Building an inclusive development-oriented Information Society will require unremitting multi-stakeholder effort. We thus commit ourselves to remain fully engaged—nationally, regionally and internationally—to ensure sustainable implementation and follow-up of the outcomes and commitments reached during the WSIS process and its Geneva and Tunis phases of the Summit. Taking into account the multifaceted nature of building the Information Society, effective cooperation among governments, private sector, civil society and the United Nations and other international organizations, according to their different roles and responsibilities and leveraging on their expertise, is essential. </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span>84. Governments and other stakeholders should identify those areas where further effort and resources are required, and jointly identify, and where appropriate develop, implementation strategies, mechanisms and processes for WSIS outcomes at international, regional, national and local levels, paying particular attention to people and groups that are still marginalized in their access to, and utilization of, ICTs. </span></i><span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Indeed, the ITU’s current vision of Internet policy-making is less one of distributed decision-making, and more one of ‘taking control.’ For example, in </span><span><a href="http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/15601/">an interview</a></span><span> conducted last June with ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Touré, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin raised the suggestion that the union might take control of the Internet: “We are thankful to you for the ideas that you have proposed for discussion,” Putin told Touré in that conversation. “One of them is establishing international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Perhaps of greater concern are views espoused by the ITU regarding the nature of the Internet. Yesterday, at the World Summit of Information Society Forum, Mr. Alexander Ntoko, head of the Corporate Strategy Division of the ITU, </span><span><a href="http://groups.itu.int/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=c5zkrxxpiNw%3D&amp;tabid=1862">explained</a></span><span> the proposals made during the preparatory process for the WCIT, outlining a broad set of topics that can seriously impact people's rights. The categories include "security," "interoperability" and "quality of services," and the possibility that ITU recommendations and regulations will be not only binding on the world’s nations, but enforced. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In this sense, it is somewhat concerning that the ITU appears to draw its inspiration for Internet reform from the earliest days of the network. For example, earlier this year, Ntoko zeroed in on online anonymity, which EFF has </span><span><a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity">fought to protect</a></span><span> in the past. Citing the early days of ARPAnet, when the Internet consisted of a number of academic institutions who could identify each other by IP address, Ntoko has expressed his view regarding the anonymous nature of the Internet as: "[it] wasn't always that way, and shouldn't be in the future."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Rights to online expression are unlikely to fare much better than privacy under an ITU model. During last year’s IGF in Kenya, a voluntary code of conduct </span><span><a href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/UN-infosec-code.pdf">was issued</a></span><span> to further restrict free expression online. A group of nations (including China, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) released a Resolution for the UN General Assembly titled, “International Code of Conduct for Information Security.” The Code seems to be designed to preserve and protect national powers in information and communication. In it, governments </span><span><a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/09/20/russia-china-propose-un-general-assembly-resolution-on-information-security/">pledge to curb</a></span><span> “the dissemination of information that incites terrorism, secessionism or extremism or that undermines other countries’ political, economic and social stability, as well as their spiritual and cultural environment.” This overly broad provision accords any state the right to censor or block international communications, for almost any reason.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Promote openness and transparency</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Currently, there are several organizations dealing with Internet Policy at the global and regional level. T</span><span>he Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe issued guidance on Internet governance in a <a href="https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773">Declaration on Internet Governance Principles</a>. It emphasizes the need for openness and transparency:</span></p>
<blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span>Multi-stakeholder governance</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The development and implementation of Internet governance arrangements should ensure, in an open, transparent and accountable manner, the full participation of governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community and users, taking into account their specific roles and responsibilities.</span> <span>The development of international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should enable full and equal participation of all stakeholders from all countries.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span>Decentralised management</span></i></b><b><span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The decentralised nature of the responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Internet should be preserved. The bodies responsible for the technical and management aspects of the Internet, as well as the private sector should retain their leading role in technical and operational matters while ensuring transparency and being accountable to the global community for those actions which have an impact on public policy.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>There are some <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/05/17/public-interest-groups-demand-a-role-in-telecom-treaty-negotiations/">factors</a> in place that may, perhaps, insulate strong democracies such as the United States from the more harmful elements of the ITU proposal. As with all international policy-making venues, ITU outputs will not become law until enacted domestically by Member States such as the United States, Canada o Sweden. This means that any ITU policies antithetical to a free and democratic society might not necessarily make it into domestic law. <span></span>Central to this will be the legitimacy of the institution, and the United States government, for example, has already stated that the ITU’s lack of adherence to multi-stakeholder principles is deeply problematic and a <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/05/17/public-interest-groups-demand-a-role-in-telecom-treaty-negotiations/">barrier to the institution’s legitimacy</a>. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In spite of this, a closed and expanded ITU policy-making role remains a threat to an already fragile public interest. Several governments have continuously sought to launder unpopular measures through international intergovernmental venues that would subvert democratic Internet principles or hard-won international human rights law protections. The Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Treaty is a good example of policy laundering at an international level. Similarly, multi-lateral or pluri-lateral agreements, like ACTA and TPP, are a way to bypass national and global inter-governmental institutions that are more transparent and open to civil society participation as well as democratic checks and balances.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The ITU proposal will establish an ongoing source of international policy that does not have the interests and rights of Internet users in mind. Further, unlike other venues which recognize the importance of ongoing flexibility in Internet policy-making, the ITRs are a treaty, legally binding on its signatories. While the ITU’s refusal to commit to a multi-stakeholder model may act to safeguard strong democracies from its more harmful policy outputs, democratic countries with weaker internal checks and balances will find it more difficult to provide such insulation. Even countries with well-entrenched safeguards for human rights may be tempted to adopt laws that conflict with human rights where these align with powerful domestic interests, as was demonstrated by recent attempts to pass SOPA/PIPA and CISPA in the United States.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>We urge the ITU Secretary General et al to ensure that the outcomes of the WCIT and its preparatory process truly represent the common interests of all who hold a stake in the future of our information society. If your government is a member of ITU, demand transparency and tell them to open the process and disclose the WCIT preparatory documents and Treaty amendments. </span><span></span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international">International</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/council-europe">Council of Europe</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international-privacy-standards">International Privacy Standards</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/igf">Internet Governance Forum</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/policy-analysis">Policy Analysis</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Hey+ITU+Member+States%3A+No+More+Secrecy%2C+Release+the+Treaty+Proposals+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F05%2Fhey-itu-member-states-no-more-secrecy-release-wcit-documents-0" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F05%2Fhey-itu-member-states-no-more-secrecy-release-wcit-documents-0&t=Hey+ITU+Member+States%3A+No+More+Secrecy%2C+Release+the+Treaty+Proposals" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F05%2Fhey-itu-member-states-no-more-secrecy-release-wcit-documents-0" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Hey ITU Member States%3A No More Secrecy%2C Release the Treaty Proposals&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2012%2F05%2Fhey-itu-member-states-no-more-secrecy-release-wcit-documents-0" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Sat, 19 May 2012 00:14:51 +0000Katitza Rodriguez70804 at https://www.eff.orgBlogging IGF: EFF Fights Against Dangers of Intermediaries as Internet Policehttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/IGF-EFF-Fights-Against-Dangers-Intermediaries-Internet-Police
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>As several international organizations hatch new ways to impose control over online activities, genuine multi-stakeholder input in policy development becomes extremely crucial. The sixth <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms">UN Internet Governance Forum</a> (IGF), held in Nairobi, Kenya, was an important venue for discussing competing models for governing the Internet.</p>
<p>EFF played a pivotal role in shaping the dialogue at this forum, and we were able to push our policies to enhance free expression and privacy, while preventing various government and corporate efforts at mobilizing Internet intermediaries to police the Internet. EFF explained why the effort to utilize Internet intermediaries--from Comcast to Youtube--as tools for surveillance and censorship is a dangerous and misguided policy that will impede innovation and freedom of expression.</p>
<p>At a workshop organized by the <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/815-ig4d-workshop-144-human-rights-come-first-a-constitutional-moment-for-internet-governance">Council of Europe</a> (CoE), EFF presented our analysis of the set of Internet governance principles produced by the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/21/48289796.pdf">Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments</a> (OECD) and the <a href="https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773">Council of Europe</a>.</p>
<p>EFF supported the CoE’s principles because they create a solid foundation by stating that any Internet governance arrangement must ensure protection of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law. The CoE also <a target="_blank" href="https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835805&amp;Site=CM&amp;BackColorInternet%20=C3C3C3&amp;BackColorIntranet=EDB021&amp;BackColorLogged=F5D383">adopted a resolution</a> recognizing that the right to freedom of expression is fully applicable to domain names. We also praised <a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf">the U.N report on Freedom of Expression and Opinion</a> for freeing private entities from the burden of policing the Internet. “...Censorship measures should never be delegated to a private entity, and that no one should be held liable for content on the Internet of which they are not the author...”</p>
<p>We reiterated <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-declines-endorse-oecd-communiqu-principles">our criticism</a> of the OECD Internet governance principles adopted in June, for encouraging states to turn <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/why-eff-supports-csisacs-decision-not-endorse-oecd">Internet intermediaries into Internet cops</a>. These intermediaries are uniquely placed to exert an unprecedented level of censorship and surveillance since our most valuable information is transmitted through their services. Such new measures that seek Internet companies to deter infringement give Internet companies powerful incentives to surveil their customers.</p>
<p>Dramatic examples of intermediaries becoming spies, censors, and informants abound. In the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security is using domain name registrars to confiscate domain names <i>accused</i> of copyright infringement (EFF <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/06/20">is fighting</a> these <a href="https://www.eff.org/cases/puerto-80-v-us">improper seizures</a>).</p>
<p>In Ireland, ISPs have voluntarily begun cutting off citizens from the Internet based on allegations of copyright infringement. Several major U.S. Internet access providers struck a deal with big content industry to cut user’s Internet access based on allegations of copyright infringement. Yet millions of subscribers who will be governed by the deal were <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/graduated-response-deal-what-if-users-had-been">absent from the discussion</a>.</p>
<p>During the meeting, we asked OECD member countries to further improve its multi-stakeholder discussions in future negotiations on Internet intermediaries to achieve consensus among all stakeholders. The process must respect international human rights as a baseline for any policy dialogue.</p>
<p>The users must be represented in the development of Internet policy because the future of the Internet is too important to be left to companies and governments alone.<span> </span>The only way to get users’ views involved is a multi-stakeholder process, providing versatility, quicker responsiveness to changing situations, and an opportunity to directly persuade governments.</p>
<p>Multi-stakeholder processes cannot be multi-stakeholder in name only. Civil society must ensure the users’ inputs are included, and not left by the wayside. We should remain wary of the risk of multi-stakeholder processes being rendered moot by secret negotiations that circumvent transparent discussion. While negotiations at the OECD were held in Paris, recent documents <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/copyright-czar-cozies-up">disclosed</a> by a Freedom of Information Act request revealed how, according to Wired, U.S. top ranking officials actively participated in “secret negotiations between Hollywood, the recording industry, and ISPs to disrupt access for users suspected of violating copyright law.” Such backroom deal-making cut the users out, to the detriment of the web's future.</p>
<p>The informal nature of IGF provided a vibrant space where all participants could debate openly. The forum, which was attended by governments, non-profits and companies from around the world present an amazing opportunity to reach out to governments and build global coalitions with civil society and like-minded organizations. More than ever, International cooperation among civil society needs to be strengthened to muster public outcry. EFF will continue to move forward policies that protect the open Internet and affirm existing limits on the liability of Internet intermediaries. We will continue to oppose legal and policy frameworks that encourage Internet intermediaries to filter and block online content or disconnect users from the Internet.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/free-speech">Free Speech</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international">International</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/eff-europe">EFF Europe</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/igf">Internet Governance Forum</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/oecd">OECD</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Blogging+IGF%3A+EFF+Fights+Against+Dangers+of+Intermediaries+as+Internet+Police+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2FIGF-EFF-Fights-Against-Dangers-Intermediaries-Internet-Police" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2FIGF-EFF-Fights-Against-Dangers-Intermediaries-Internet-Police&t=Blogging+IGF%3A+EFF+Fights+Against+Dangers+of+Intermediaries+as+Internet+Police" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2FIGF-EFF-Fights-Against-Dangers-Intermediaries-Internet-Police" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Blogging IGF%3A EFF Fights Against Dangers of Intermediaries as Internet Police&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2FIGF-EFF-Fights-Against-Dangers-Intermediaries-Internet-Police" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:54:05 +0000Katitza Rodriguez67587 at https://www.eff.orgInternet Freedom Discussed at the Council of Europehttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/deeplinks/2011/05/internet-freedom-council-europe-draft-principles
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>When governments and companies assemble on an international level to discuss "Internet freedom," EFF's policy experts go on alert. All too frequently, government-level discussions about Internet freedom turn into opportunities to discuss tangential issues, many of which have negative implications on online freedom: laws and policies promoting censorship and surveillance on the Internet. With that in mind, EFF attended the Council of Europe (CoE) meeting on <a href="http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media-dataprotection/conf-internet-freedom/">Internet Freedom: From Principles to Global Treaty Law?</a> to ensure that European countries’ fundamental values--human rights, democracy and the rule of law--are upheld. EFF went in prepared to fight any attempt to promote pervasive spying proposals or government attempts to control the Internet. The Council of Europe largely succeeded in fostering a positive, rights-centered tone at the meeting. However, EFF remains concerned about the demonstrated support for a dangerous "cybercrime" initiative that invites online surveillance abuses.</p>
<p>Over 150 participants attended the meeting, including representatives from governments, companies and civil society. The Council of Europe’s expert group on <a href="http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-CI/default_en.asp">cross-border Internet</a> proposed a set of <a href="http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media-dataprotection/conf-internet-freedom/Internet%20governance%20principles%20linkpage.asp">draft principles</a>--ten ideas intended to guide countries' national and international Internet-related policies, norms, and rules. At the moment, the draft principles state that Internet governance arrangements must ensure the protection of user rights and freedoms in accordance with international human rights standards and the rule of law. Moreover, the draft states that the <a href="http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeTraites.asp?MA=3&amp;CM=7&amp;CL=ENG">European Convention on Human Rights,</a> one of the leading international legal instruments protecting human rights, “[applies] to the Internet and, more generally, to the information society as a whole in the same way as [it applies] to offline activities.” Notably, the expert group's decisive stand in favor of human rights principles did not inspire the kind of heated arguments that typically accompany the inclusion of human rights language in international policy documents in <a href="http://www.apec.org/en/Groups/Committee-on-Trade-and-Investment/Electronic-Commerce-Steering-Group.aspx">other</a> <a href="http://www.itu.int/cybersecurity/">venues</a>. The draft included no references to abusive surveillance measures, and, overall, EFF is looking forward to hearing more discussion about how this set of principles will be applied in the real world.</p>
<p>Amidst the discussion of human rights and public interest Internet policy principles came an inspiring real-world example from Birgitta Jonsdottir, an Icelandic member of parliament who is fighting to transform Iceland into a free-speech haven. She is currently <a href="https://www.eff.org/wikileaks">battling</a> a US government attempt to collect her Twitter records as part of an investigation into Wikileaks. Flanked by US government representatives on her panel, Jonsdottir gave a stirring presentation on the <a href="http://immi.is/Home">Icelandic Modern Media Initiative</a> (IMMI) and its promise to protect free expression for journalists and whistle-blowers from all over the world. IMMI is promoting an Icelandic law that will create a supportive jurisdiction for the publication of investigative journalism and other threatened online media. The Initiative is garnering increasing support: the European Parliament <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0150+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN">passed</a> a resolution “to position [Iceland and the EU] strongly as regards to legal protection on freedom of expression and information,” a position that will surely bolster IMMI’s work.</p>
<p>The meeting did, however, play host to the kind of dangerous surveillance rhetoric we worry about when countries gather to discuss Internet freedom. Speaking to the conference via <a href="http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media-dataprotection/conf-internet-freedom/">pre-recorded</a> web video, the CoE Secretary General issued a troubling statement referring to the <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/08/worlds-worst-internet-laws-sneaking-through-senate">Convention on Cybercrime</a> as “the only convention in the world to protect people on the Internet.” "Cybercrime" is a buzzword typically used in combination with plans to give law enforcement entities more power to surveil users online, a policy package that can also endanger citizen privacy in developing countries where weak judicial powers and low legal safeguards make it easy for democratically elected leaders to abuse online surveillance capabilities.</p>
<p>We were equally uncomfortable when the US government representative referenced Hillary Clinton’s February 2011 speech on "<a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm">Net freedom</a>"; a speech that, for all of its laudable commitment to a free and open Internet, regrettably endorsed the Budapest Cybercrime Convention’s overbroad surveillance powers and lack of legal safeguards and more broadly pledged to support efforts of other nations to bolster their "cybercrime" law enforcement capacity. The pitfalls in these initiatives to help others nations' law surveillance capabilities are only beginning to be made apparent; we <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/23/wikileaks-paraguay-govt-sought-dea-spying-help/">have recently seen</a> how the Paraguayan government sought US government assistance in spying on its political enemies.</p>
<p>The CoE is not yet looking at a global treaty and has made clear on its website that these principles can be formalized into a "soft law" framework of voluntary practices. Governments, businesses and civil society groups should reflect deeply about the CoE draft principles that might guide the development of national and international policy. In addition, policymakers and NGOs should compare all of the various proposals that are being hatched in other governmental and intergovernmental organizations to determine which have the most powerful and unequivocal language for protecting human rights. The <a href="http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/">Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles</a> at the United Nations <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/">Internet Governance Forum</a> (IGF) could be a productive locus for this work; they are an open network of individuals and organizations that have shown a robust commitment to upholding human rights on the Internet and upholding the right to anonymity.</p>
<p>Safeguarding users’ rights is easier said than done, particularly when governments' complex demands are debated at an international scale. But EFF in Europe (working with fellow travelers, like <a href="http://edri.org">EDRi</a>) will continue to demand that governments protect Internet rights online and preserve an open and free Internet for all, and we will continue to keep the public informed on how this discussion evolves.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/free-speech">Free Speech</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/anonymity">Anonymity</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/wikileaks">Wikileaks</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international">International</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/council-europe">Council of Europe</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/eff-europe">EFF Europe</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/igf">Internet Governance Forum</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/privacy">Privacy</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Internet+Freedom+Discussed+at+the+Council+of+Europe+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2011%2F05%2Finternet-freedom-council-europe-draft-principles" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2011%2F05%2Finternet-freedom-council-europe-draft-principles&t=Internet+Freedom+Discussed+at+the+Council+of+Europe" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2011%2F05%2Finternet-freedom-council-europe-draft-principles" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Internet Freedom Discussed at the Council of Europe&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2011%2F05%2Finternet-freedom-council-europe-draft-principles" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Thu, 12 May 2011 17:43:55 +0000Katitza Rodriguez61373 at https://www.eff.orgEFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forumhttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>EFF recently participated in the <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms">UN Internet Governance Forum</a> (IGF) in Vilnius, Lithuania, advocating for the respect of citizens' fundamental rights online. The IGF is an experimental and influential multi-stakeholder policy forum convened by the United Nations Secretary General in 2006, where civil society, industry, the technical community, and decision makers discuss key aspects of Internet governance issues on an equal footing. The informal nature of the IGF is designed to promote the full and frank exchange of ideas on important Internet policy issues without the knock-down-and-dragged-out conflicts that characterize other international fora where recommendations or binding treaties are made. This year, <a href="http://intgovforum.org/cms/2010/Chairman%27s.Summary.Expanded.pdf">IGF</a> brought together over 1,400 participants from around the world. <a href="http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ondemand/">Videos</a> and <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/96-vilnius-2010-meeting-events/625-transcripts">transcripts</a> of all the official meetings are now online and make for interesting viewing.</p>
<p>EFF participated in several <a href="https://www.eff.org/calendar/2010/09/14/eff-united-nations-internet-governance-forum">panels</a> and co-organized a workshop on <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2010View&amp;wspid=66">The Future of Privacy</a> together with the <a href="http://www.isoc.org">Internet Society</a>. The speakers included representatives from the US Federal Trade Commission, the Spanish Data Protection Authority, the Council of Europe Consultative Committee of Convention 108, Oracle Corporation, the European Data Protection Supervisor, AT&amp;T, Google, the Internet Society, and EFF. All of them expressed their views on existing laws and international frameworks on privacy, and helped to identify some of the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.</p>
<p>In the workshop, EFF focused on several key areas where governments will be able to play a vital role in protecting their citizens' privacy both now and increasingly so in the future, including setting the right standards for government access to citizens’ private communications and related communications records. Here are a few of the points we highlighted:</p>
<p>• The law should protect the privacy of your data stored for you by a provider in the same way that it protects your data stored by you on your home or in your office. In an age where countless millions are trusting web-based email services such as Microsoft’s Hotmail to store years worth of private correspondence, and cloud services such as Google Docs to store their most private documents, it is time for privacy law to treat online storage as an extension of your own home or office. Privacy law has typically provided strong protections against government intrusion into information that you store offline personally. It should also provide strong safeguards for the data you store for a similar purpose with an online third party provider.</p>
<p>• The law should include better protections for your traffic data. Typically, the contents of communications are strongly protected by privacy law whereas non-content transactional data, traffic data, or “meta-data” is typically given much less protection, even though it can be just as revealing. Monitoring of other data that is arguably transactional and not content -- such as the location of your cell phone, clickstream data revealing the web sites you visit, and search logs indicating what you searched for using Google or another search engine -- is just as invasive as reading your email or listening to your phone calls.</p>
<p>EFF called on government officials to focus their analysis on the invasiveness of the surveillance techniques at issue, rather than deciding the appropriate level of privacy protection based on where the data is stored, or whether it is characterized as content or traffic data. Communications are communications, whether telephone conversations or e-mail messages. The mere fact that Internet communications leave more detailed traces should not entail less privacy protection vis-à-vis governments. We believe that <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/mandatory-data-retention"> mandatory data retention regimes</a> that compels ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data should be <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/mentions/2010/10/29">repealed.</a></p>
<p>The panel also discussed the revision of the EU Data Protection Directive, the Council of Europe's Privacy Convention 108—the first legally binding international privacy instrument, the harmonization and interoperability of privacy regimes in different countries, as well as the insights of the technical community. The <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf">comprehensive report produced jointly by EFF and ISOC</a> contains more detailed information about the workshop participants' presentations and fascinating exchange of views on these subjects.</p>
<p>The IGF has provided a very useful venue for discussing these important global issues with key government and non-governmental stakeholders, but whether it will continue to do so in the future is currently unclear. At the end of this year, the United Nations' General Assembly will decide if it should extend the IGF's initial five-year mandate. The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) is currently carrying out an <a href="http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5726&amp;lang=1">open consultation</a> on the ways in which to improve the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). A road map of the future CSTD work on IGF is <a href="http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Download.asp?docid=14030&amp;lang=1&amp;intItemID=4839">now posted here</a>. Stay tuned to Deeplinks for news and our thoughts on these breaking developments.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international">International</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/eff-europe">EFF Europe</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/international-privacy-standards">International Privacy Standards</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/mandatory-data-retention">Mandatory Data Retention</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/igf">Internet Governance Forum</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/privacy">Privacy</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=EFF+Discusses+the+Future+of+Internet+Privacy+at+UN+Internet+Governance+Forum+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2010%2F11%2Ffuture-privacy-internet-governance-forum" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2010%2F11%2Ffuture-privacy-internet-governance-forum&t=EFF+Discusses+the+Future+of+Internet+Privacy+at+UN+Internet+Governance+Forum" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2010%2F11%2Ffuture-privacy-internet-governance-forum" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fdeeplinks%2F2010%2F11%2Ffuture-privacy-internet-governance-forum" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:54:49 +0000Katitza Rodriguez61173 at https://www.eff.orgEFF Experts Address Security, Openness, and Privacy at United Nations' Internet Governance Forumhttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/press/archives/2010/09/07
<div class="field field-name-field-pr-subhead field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Conference Set for September 14-17 in Vilnius, Lithuania</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Vilnius, Lithuania - Experts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will address security, openness, privacy, and other issues at the United Nations' Internet Governance Forum (IGF), set for September 14-17 in Vilnius, Lithuania.</p>
<p>This is the fifth meeting of the IGF, which was established to discuss public policy issues related to Internet governance on a global scale. Approximately 1,500 government policymakers, technologists, politicians, and others will attend.</p>
<p>EFF experts will participate in nine workshops in Vilnius, including "The Future of Privacy," with EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston and EFF International Rights Director Katitza Rodriguez, who is also a member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group that helped plan the meeting. Also on the agenda is "Governance of Social Media," with EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl and "Why We Need an Open Web," with EFF International Affairs Director Eddan Katz.</p>
<p>For a complete schedule of EFF's participation in IGF see http://www.eff.org/calendar/2010/09/14/eff-united-nations-internet-governance-forum.</p>
<p>WHAT:<br />
United Nations' Internet Governance Forum</p>
<p>WHEN:<br />
September 14-17</p>
<p>WHERE: Lithuanian Exhibition Centre LITEXPO Laisves pr. 5 LT-04215 Vilnius, Lithuania</p>
<p>For more on the IGF:<br />
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/<br />
http://www.igf2010.lt</p>
<p>Contact:</p>
<p>Rebecca Jeschke<br />
Media Relations Director<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation<br />
press@eff.org</p>
</div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=EFF+Experts+Address+Security%2C+Openness%2C+and+Privacy+at+United+Nations%27+Internet+Governance+Forum+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fpress%2Farchives%2F2010%2F09%2F07" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fpress%2Farchives%2F2010%2F09%2F07&t=EFF+Experts+Address+Security%2C+Openness%2C+and+Privacy+at+United+Nations%27+Internet+Governance+Forum" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fpress%2Farchives%2F2010%2F09%2F07" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=EFF Experts Address Security%2C Openness%2C and Privacy at United Nations%27 Internet Governance Forum&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpt-br%2Fpress%2Farchives%2F2010%2F09%2F07" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:07:07 +0000Rebecca Jeschke62213 at https://www.eff.org